What does the First Ammendment mean?

[Redleg]

Are you calling the hypothetical regime that Joker described, democratic?

Nope, giving you a leading question so that you can answer your own question.

Again: My initial statement was this:

I think the 2nd Ammendment is different from other fundamental rights that the constitution gives you. The "normal ones" like free speech, free religion or the right to assemble make the whole constitution worthwhile. They have a value of their own. But the right to defend the constitution against tyrants makes only sense if the constitution is something that is worth defending. And: You don´t need and in fact don´t have this right as long as your "normal rights" are intact.

Again you miss the point of the first 10 ammendments known as the Bill of Rights. All the rights mentioned in those 10 ammendments are rights - or as your trying to allude to "normal." If you deny one of the ammendments that define the rights of the citizens - then you will deny other's as you decide what is right and wrong in your attempt to define the rights as "normal" or circumstancial.

For instance in this discussion the speech that gets individuals in trouble with the state is one that advocates sedition (violent overthrow of the government, also known as insurrection) is mentioned in the text of the Constitution - other types of speech that have been defined by the courts as violating the rights of others, is deemed unprotected speech and the state can prosecute the individual. This is how the process works to define rights and to limit the scope of what constitutes the right or not.

Now while the Judicial Branch has narrowed the scope somewhat of what Freedom of Speech means - they have done so within the scope of their constitutional authority (for the most part), the legislative branch has also done the same thing by adding additional ammendments to the constitution, and by making legislative laws. This is all consistent with the democratic process as envisioned in the constitution.


A basic concept of rights that I have mentioned before.
Rights - require responsiblity. If one is unwilling to accept responsiblity one does not need rights.

I say that the rights of the first kind are primary because they make our lives as civilians in peaceful times worthwhile.

All 10 ammendments in what is called the Bill of Rights serve that function.

The right to defend other rights requires the existence of before mentioned other rights.

Its concurrent with. This is where you are missing the main point of the Bill of Rights and the intent of the Constitution.

Whats wrong? Where in detail is this, in your opinion, incompatible with the Bill of Rights?

Alreadly noted.

[Haudegen]

Nope, giving you a leading question so that you can answer your own question.

I see, thanks.

Again you miss the point of the first 10 ammendments known as the Bill of Rights. All the rights mentioned in those 10 ammendments are rights - or as your trying to allude to "normal." If you deny one of the ammendments that define the rights of the citizens - then you will deny other's as you decide what is right and wrong in your attempt to define the rights as "normal" or circumstancial.

It´s far from me to deny any single word in the Bill of Rights. I was just stating that the right to defend the constitution requires the existence of a constitution. IMHO that´s just a logical conclusion.

For instance in this discussion the speech that gets individuals in trouble with the state is one that advocates sedition (violent overthrow of the government, also known as insurrection) is mentioned in the text of the Constitution - other types of speech that have been defined by the courts as violating the rights of others, is deemed unprotected speech and the state can prosecute the individual. This is how the process works to define rights and to limit the scope of what constitutes the right or not.

I think we already agreed on this some hours ago.

Its concurrent with. This is where you are missing the main point of the Bill of Rights and the intent of the Constitution.

It is concurrent but it could not exist alone. The other rights, in theory, could exist alone. That´s simply a structural difference between the categories I made. It has nothing to do with the question which right in which case should be valued higher than another one.

[Redleg]

It´s far from me to deny any single word in the Bill of Rights. I was just stating that the right to defend the constitution requires the existence of a constitution. IMHO that´s just a logical conclusion.

Again your missing the main point. Rights in the United States would not exist without the constitution. All rights in the United States stem from the constitution.

I think we already agreed on this some hours ago.

In part, however you keep returning to "normal" and circumstancial rights in your arguement. A right exists or it does not.

It is concurrent but it could not exist alone. The other rights, in theory, could exist alone. That´s simply a structural difference between the categories I made. It has nothing to do with the question which right in which case should be valued higher than another one.

All rights in the United States stem from the constitution. If one could not exist alone, all could not exist alone. Any of the current constitutional granted rights could be revoke by the constitutional process.

The arguement that you are attempting here is not one of constitutional rights in the United States but one of a different, but equal concept, that of inherient rights of man.

Even under that concept of rights man has the right to defend himself. So I find fault still with your arguement.

[Haudegen]

Again your missing the main point. Rights in the United States would not exist without the constitution. All rights in the United States stem from the constitution.

Such is the nature of any constitution on earth. Why is this the main point in this debate?

All rights in the United States stem from the constitution. If one could not exist alone, all could not exist alone.

No. Just to give an example: Some parts of your constitution are older than other parts. Of course they could in theory exist alone.

You should differentiate between the parts of the constistution that set rules for the organisation of the state and that part that sets the human rights.

The arguement that you are attempting here is not one of constitutional rights in the United States but one of a different, but equal concept, that of inherient rights of man.

No. It´s only applied logic. I think the legal experts in the USA are applying logic in their argumentation, too. But please correct me if I´m wrong here.

[Redleg]

Such is the nature of any constitution on earth. Why is this the main point in this debate?

It might have something to do with the title of the thread. What does the First Ammendment mean? Hince the discussion was alreadly centered around that document and how it applies to the United States.

No. Just to give an example: Some parts of your constitution are older than other parts. Of course they could in theory exist alone.

Incorrect the text of the constitution has been maintained - the new parts are all ammendments.

You should differentiate between the parts of the constistution that set rules for the organisation of the state and that part that sets the human rights.

Its done - all one has to do is read the document to see it. The main body establishes the rules of the government. The first 10 ammendments set up the rights for the citizens of the nation. The remaining ammendments make futher adjustments to the constitution or address issues concerning rights that were not clearly defined. ie voting being one of them.

No. It´s only applied logic. I think the legal experts in the USA are applying logic in their argumentation, too. But please correct me if I´m wrong here.

Not a lawyer only a student of the constitution.

However you have intermix the concept knows as the "rights of man" within this discussion about what the United States Constitution states in the "Bill of Rights." In discussing rights in the court room - from the documents I have read - the lawyers often refer to the Constitution as the basis of their arguement.

Both concepts are relative to each other - and come from the same time period. Both allow for the defense of self as being a fundmental right of man.